role of cosmic rays in cloud formation confirmed (again), warmists in denial

[uppi]

I thought that this had been discussed in previous global warming threads, so I didn't bother to expand on the OP. But to put thing very simply, this shows that cloud formation, recognized by all camps in these debates as possibly having a more important influence on climate than the changes in CO2 concentration (if it changes), does change depending on solar activity. By itself that wouldn't deny that CO2 is also causing some kind of warming, but shakes the faith that CO2 is the main driver of any recent climate change. Remember, models take reconstructed past changes in temperature, attribute it to CO2, and then use that as one of its inputs. If past changes in temperature were not caused by CO2, or solely by CO2, then the models are wrong. Not only are they future predictions off, their algorithms are wrong.

No, it does not. If you had read at least the abstract of the paper instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have noticed, that they examined the role of galatic cosmic rays. As the name says, those are coming from the galaxy, not the sun. Solar activity is unrelated to the presence of galactic cosmic rays, so your statement is wrong.

And if "skeptics" cannot be bothered to do basic fact checking, they should not be wondering why scientists tend to be hostile.

What I find funny is that the people the most eager to paint any skepticism towards the "scientific consensus" on AGW as an "attack on science" are precisely those with zero scientific background.

And how do you know the scientific background of the people posting here?

 

[Orange Seeds]

I thought that this had been discussed in previous global warming threads, so I didn't bother to expand on the OP. But to put thing very simply, this shows that cloud formation, recognized by all camps in these debates as possibly having a more important influence on climate than the changes in CO2 concentration (if it changes), does change depending on solar activity. By itself that wouldn't deny that CO2 is also causing some kind of warming, but shakes the faith that CO2 is the main driver of any recent climate change. Remember, models take reconstructed past changes in temperature, attribute it to CO2, and then use that as one of its inputs. If past changes in temperature were not caused by CO2, or solely by CO2, then the models are wrong. Not only are they future predictions off, their algorithms are wrong.

Thanks for expanding it a bit for me. I still think, however, this is no where near the scathing attack on AGW that you seem think it is. Another factor affects cloud formation. We still have little idea how much, and if it matters.

 

[luiz]

And how do you know the scientific background of the people posting here?

Not that hard to figure out if there is a minimum scientific backgound, given the content of posts. For starters, people with scientific backgrounds wouldn't be treating climatologists as unfallible demi-gods, nor accepting climate models without substantial grains of salt (not saying they are useless, just flawed).

But I was rather thinking of the "progressive blogosphere". I find it funny that people with no idea about what scientific practice is talk about "war on science".

 

[innonimatu]

No, it does not. If you had read at least the abstract of the paper instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have noticed, that they examined the role of galatic cosmic rays. As the name says, those are coming from the galaxy, not the sun. Solar activity is unrelated to the presence of galactic cosmic rays, so your statement is wrong.

And if "skeptics" cannot be bothered to do basic fact checking, they should not be wondering why scientists tend to be hostile.

Funny that you should speak of fact-checking, you who failed to notice that sun activity (solar wind) controls the amount of galactic cosmic rays able to reach Earth.
Easier to just accuse others of not checking facts...

Thanks for expanding it a bit for me. I still think, however, this is no where near the scathing attack on AGW that you seem think it is. Another factor affects cloud formation. We still have little idea how much, and if it matters.

It's not enough to bury it, granted. But it should be enough to bury its certainties (in won't, but it should). And my problem has been with that.

 

[luiz]

Another things that I can't quite accept is the certainty that GW will lead to disaster. Why is the current global average temperature assumed to be some sort of optimum God-defined number and any deviation sure to cause harm? Isn't it much more logical to assume that GW would have both good and bad effects and it is impossible to know for sure which would prevail?

I mean, in the past a lot of really intelligent people (most notably von Neumann) wanted to increase on purpose the Earth's temperature as they considered that would lead to better crops and etc. Nowadays people take it for granted that GW would cause more and more severe draughts, floods, tornados and etc. Couldn't it cause less? A huge percentage of the Earth's land surface is on freakin' frozen locations in Russia and Canada, after all...

 

[Thedrin]

Funny that you should speak of fact-checking, you who failed to notice that sun activity (solar wind) controls the amount of galactic cosmic rays able to reach Earth.
Easier to just accuse others of not checking facts...

Yes, a decrease in solar activity increases the amount of galactic cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere. As the main cycle of solar activity has a period of about 11 years, this means that the amount of galactic cosmic rays entering the atmosphere reaches a local maximum every 11 years or so.

So, if galactic rays have an affect on our climate, there should be a regular cycle in our climate that has a period of 11 years. Data on the Earth's climate goes back far enough that if the effects of galactic cosmic rays is significant, it should be relatively easy to confirm. This would also mean that the global climate cools for 5 - 6 years before warming for 5 - 6 years. Global warming has been an issue in the political sphere for far longer than this.

If you're using this article as evidence that galactic cosmic rays could be a significant reason for global warming over a longer period than 6 years, then you'd need to be providing evidence that the number of galactic cosmic rays has been increasing over the last couple of decades (at least). I'm not a huge fan of the Sagan criteria, but in this case it would fit; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Luiz:
Another things that I can't quite accept is the certainty that GW will lead to disaster. Why is the current global average temperature assumed to be some sort of optimum God-defined number and any deviation sure to cause harm? Isn't it much more logical to assume that GW would have both good and bad effects and it is impossible to know for sure which would prevail?

I mean, in the past a lot of really intelligent people (most notably von Neumann) wanted to increase on purpose the Earth's temperature as they considered that would lead to better crops and etc. Nowadays people take it for granted that GW would cause more and more severe draughts, floods, tornados and etc. Couldn't it cause less? A huge percentage of the Earth's land surface is on freakin' frozen locations in Russia and Canada, after all...

If it's 50% likelihood of making things better and 50% likelihood of making things worse, then I'd rather avoid global warming. I see no need to gamble on the affects of global warming when negative affects are as likely as positive affects (and the climate I grew up with was decent enough).

 

[useless]

I'm sure melting the icecaps will have an incredibly positive effect on all the flooded areas of the world, what with the majority of the Lowlands in Europe being flooded, people losing houses, countries being ruined..

 

[Earthling]

But to put thing very simply, this shows that cloud formation, recognized by all camps in these debates as possibly having a more important influence on climate than the changes in CO2 concentration (if it changes), does change depending on solar activity.

No, it doesn't. Once again you have incorrectly stated what the articles and links you provided actually say. Even if you want to accept the most far-fetched conclusions possible with no further study, the link is to cosmic rays, not solar activity.

Also a quote from one of the papers you linked which contradicts your own summary of the material in the OP, you've mis-stated what is actually being said.

However, both approaches may be inherently flawed, as they assume a first-order relationship (i.e. presuming that cloud
changes consistently accompany GCR changes), when instead, a second-order relationship may be more likely (i.e. that cloud changes only occur with GCR changes if atmospheric conditions are suitable).

 

[Thedrin]

No, it doesn't. Once again you have incorrectly stated what the articles and links you provided actually say. Even if you want to accept the most far-fetched conclusions possible with no further study, the link is to cosmic rays, not solar activity.

Wikipedia page on solar activity tells me that galactic cosmic rays that manage to enter our atmosphere are related to the level of solar activity (and solar magnetism and the Earth's magnetic field). Increased solar activity decreases the galactic cosmic rays entering our atmosphere.

 

[Earthling]

No, in fact I did miss uppi's post and those responses but that doesn't make what inno said any less wrong.

The paper clearly describes they are looking at GCR flux over periods of just a few days in correlation with cloud cover. There is no discussion or evidence there related to 11 year solar cycles. You can't possibly have read the original material linked and think that is a valid statement.

 

[Orange Seeds]

It's not enough to bury it, granted. But it should be enough to bury its certainties (in won't, but it should). And my problem has been with that.

Anyone who was claiming that the truth of AGW was certain was already wrong. All knowledge claims are probabilistic.

Another things that I can't quite accept is the certainty that GW will lead to disaster. Why is the current global average temperature assumed to be some sort of optimum God-defined number and any deviation sure to cause harm? Isn't it much more logical to assume that GW would have both good and bad effects and it is impossible to know for sure which would prevail?

I mean, in the past a lot of really intelligent people (most notably von Neumann) wanted to increase on purpose the Earth's temperature as they considered that would lead to better crops and etc. Nowadays people take it for granted that GW would cause more and more severe draughts, floods, tornados and etc. Couldn't it cause less? A huge percentage of the Earth's land surface is on freakin' frozen locations in Russia and Canada, after all...

Mostly because all of our economic infrastructure is geared towards the now typical climate. The primary cost is sea level rises which can be quite disastrous in the short term and it would take a incredible increase in crop output to make up for the loss of most of the world's current coastline. Especially because the forces of erosion would take centuries to create coasts like we see today.

 

[Dreadnought]

Good OP; thanks for the information. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

 

[innonimatu]

No, in fact I did miss uppi's post and those responses but that doesn't make what inno said any less wrong.

The paper clearly describes they are looking at GCR flux over periods of just a few days in correlation with cloud cover. There is no discussion or evidence there related to 11 year solar cycles. You can't possibly have read the original material linked and think that is a valid statement.

No, that paper did not look at longer cycles. Unfortunately I don't know - yet - of any decades-long study of the possible effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover. They probably exist, I just haven't been searching yet, because I don't expect the existent data to be very good. I do expect that data is being carefully collected now and we will have indisputable evidence (one way or the other) within a few years.

So, yes, your objection stands (the last one to stand) for now: there is not yet enough evidence to prove that cosmic rays have a controlling effect in cloud cover. There is only evidence that they play a role, and the chemistry of the system is in the process of being discovered. Kind of like when CFCs were banned because we had worked out the chemistry of their reactions in the atmosphere with ozone, and noticed some variations which therefore were most likely caused by them.
But, as per CERN's press release, it also proves that the mechanisms assumed for cloud formation in the climate models were wrong. Which is what deniers have been claiming all along: there was not enough data to go around making dire predictions!

 

[luiz]

If it's 50% likelihood of making things better and 50% likelihood of making things worse, then I'd rather avoid global warming. I see no need to gamble on the affects of global warming when negative affects are as likely as positive affects (and the climate I grew up with was decent enough).

As far as preferences go that's OK. But if indeed the odds are 50-50, and assuming the intensities are the same, then it makes no sense to spend billions to avoid GW.

Any cost-benefit analysis must also take into account what we need to do (or give up) to avoid/reverse GW. I'm afraid the developing world won't be bothered to halt their industrialization merely to preserve the climate you grew up with.

Mostly because all of our economic infrastructure is geared towards the now typical climate. The primary cost is sea level rises which can be quite disastrous in the short term and it would take a incredible increase in crop output to make up for the loss of most of the world's current coastline. Especially because the forces of erosion would take centuries to create coasts like we see today.

I would dispute that even a sizeable increase in global average temperature, of say 5 degrees celsius by 2100, would make much of our infra-structure useless. I also don't buy that it would lead to some catastrophic rise in sea levels; I don't think this is being suggested even by the most alarmed "warmists". The IPCC forecasts a rise of 18 to 59cm, and even they refrain from stating it as a certainty.

So my best guess is that warming would lead to problems in some areas and open opportunities in others. And have no effect in other areas (after all GW is not supposed to be uniform).

My take is that there is no real base to state that there will be a climate-induced catastrophe in the next century. Additionally, it is pretty silly to make forecasts about climate over a century from now because by then the technological level will be so vastly different that all bets are off. So claims along the lines of "by the year 3000 London will underwater!" are comedy, not science (and yes, I've read this).

 

[uppi]

No, that paper did not look at longer cycles. Unfortunately I don't know - yet - of any decades-long study of the possible effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover. They probably exist, I just haven't been searching yet, because I don't expect the existent data to be very good. I do expect that data is being carefully collected now and we will have indisputable evidence (one way or the other) within a few years.

There have studies of possible links between cosmic rays and global temperature, e.g.

www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf
(end of section 3.3; it is a scanned pdf and I won't bother to retype it here, so no quote)

Their result is, that cosmic ray flux lags temperature and thus cannot be responsible for the temperature rise.


But the main point of the measurement was not actually cosmic rays, that is just used by everyone to hype the paper. The important message is, that the measured rates do not match the expectations (even with cosmic rays included), so there is a significant portion caused by other compounds. There is a chance that these could be man-made, and in that case, we would have influenced the climate even more than just increasing greenhouse gases.

 

[LucyDuke]

Not enough data to prove my thing - doesn't matter 'cause I'm right!

Not enough data to prove your thing - you must be wrong!

 

[useless]

Science is only right when I want it to be right.

I usually trust the scientists on thi s one.

 

[Orange Seeds]

I would dispute that even a sizeable increase in global average temperature, of say 5 degrees celsius by 2100, would make much of our infra-structure useless. I also don't buy that it would lead to some catastrophic rise in sea levels; I don't think this is being suggested even by the most alarmed "warmists". The IPCC forecasts a rise of 18 to 59cm, and even they refrain from stating it as a certainty.

Your hypothetical ability to dispute my claim is a piss-poor rejection of my claim.

18-59 was the projection for this century. It is also a world mean, and is amplified by tidal action and other factors in some parts of the world. If the icecaps and the Greenland icefield were to melt, the range according to the IPCC is 110-770. These projections are possibly true, quite possibly true, and such an actuality would be catastrophic.

So my best guess is that warming would lead to problems in some areas and open opportunities in others. And have no effect in other areas (after all GW is not supposed to be uniform).

Your best guess is still a guess. You are simply presuming that everything will balance out in the end without a defense of that outcome. There are at least identifiable reasons to think there will be detriment if GW is true.

My take is that there is no real base to state that there will be a climate-induced catastrophe in the next century. Additionally, it is pretty silly to make forecasts about climate over a century from now because by then the technological level will be so vastly different that all bets are off. So claims along the lines of "by the year 3000 London will underwater!" are comedy, not science (and yes, I've read this).

The issue is that these forecasts are all that is available to us. We have to make decisions today about things in the future that we cannot know much about. Inaction is as much a decision as some other action and can be equally as misguided in retrospect. Using your argument to reject a claim that we ought to do x equally undermines the argument that we oughtn't to do x. Your point is thus absurd. A parallel example:

You are leading an army towards a field hoping to capture a strategic hill beyond it. A patrol has reported that the hill has been occupied, but this isn't certain and hasn't been established by more reliable recon.

There are two policy options available:
Policy A-- Continue moving forward in hopes of capturing the hill
Policy B--hold up in the field and wait for reinforcements and air support.

There are four possible outcomes:
1. The hill is occupied and Policy A = disaster
2. The hill is occupied and Policy B = eventual but costly victory
3. The hill is unoccupied and Policy A = best possible outcome
4. The hill is unoccupied and Policy B = 50% chance of 2 being eventual result as the enemy may take advantage of the delay and occupy the hill.

One of your staff (this is your position) says we can't justify B adequately because we don't have more reliable sources.

The problem is that we also can't justify A adequately because we lack more reliable sources to use as counterevidence. We do need to make a decision, however; we need to do this with current evidence. You can dispute the findings and significance of current evidence, but this isn't what your argument is doing. Your argument is throwing all evidence into the trash because it doesn't meet some here-to-fore undefended standard of reliability.

 

[aelf]

Noted the pro-laissez faire tendency to be averse to acting on predictions yet predicting that things will work out if we don't do anything.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm afraid the developing world won't be bothered to halt their industrialization merely to preserve the climate you grew up with.

The developing world should take advantage of what is an unique option of skipping generations of costly and wasteful technological solutions and take the sustainable route instead.